Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots (Apple vs. Samsung)

[kartu]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Evidence for this?

Samsung Galaxy Tab BANNED from selling in Germany. (because, you know, it's rectangular and has rounded corners )
Samsung Galaxy WITH 3G banned from selling in Australia.
No Samsung Galaxy WITH 3G in US.

Microsoft has also been quite aggressive with its patents, especially in regards to both Linux and Android.

They didn't go "thermonuclear" and stop anything, the are merely abusing idiotic patents systems to make money.

This kind of aggressive, rent-seeking behaviour has been around since the patent system was implemented.

Example of any major product by major brand being blocked by other major brand's lawsuit pretty please.

[covfam]

the #1 and #2 door lock companies in the western world finished thier patent infringement dispute early in the year with Kwikset (black & decker) against Schlage and Kwikset won forcing Schlage to stop making and selling its its Secure key products.

[kjk]

RIM's patent litigation since 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researc...ent_litigation
Against: Handspring, Glenayre, Good
Sued by: NTP 2003 http://www.brighthand.com/article/RI...eath_Sentence/ , almost resulting in a complete blockage of Blackberry sales in the US (similar to what Samsung is facing in Europe)

Motorola patent litigation:
Tivo, RIM, Apple http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Pres...ment-344d.aspx
(Note the date-Motorola sued Apple before Apple countersued)

Tivo patent litigation:
Dish http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/te...-93405054.html Verizon, Echostar

I'm sure there are many more examples, not just in tech but, as covfam mentioned, in other fields as well. But it's difficult to find them all with my Apple-colored glasses on

Edit: I do believe Apple is approaching patents in a different manner than some other firms-they don't see patents as merely a way to get licensing fees from other companies; they seem to really believe they should have exclusive rights to what they have been granted patents to.

Neither approach really solves the issue of a broken patent system, of course.

[J. Strnad]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

The real problem with focusing on companies like Apple or Microsoft is that it perpetuates the illusion that the problem is with a few 'bad apple' companies and not with corporate capitalism itself. All this wrangling over intellectual property serves a greater purpose which is the continued hegemony of an elite few (primarily, though not entirely, in the West) via the companies that they control. The west no longer has a monopoly on manufacturing and so must maintain its dominance in other ways. Ensuring that western-friendly intellectual property laws are enforced on a global scale is one aspect of that agenda.

Absolutely.

Companies are bought and sold now solely for their patents, which may number in the thousands, and attorneys then go fishing for infringement wherever they can. Lawsuits are initiated, NOT to serve justice but simply as a revenue stream, taking advantage of an overly complicated and easily manipulated patent system.

The little guy doesn't have a chance.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kjk

Edit: I do believe Apple is approaching patents in a different manner than some other firms-they don't see patents as merely a way to get licensing fees from other companies; they seem to really believe they should have exclusive rights to what they have been granted patents to.

The reason they believe that is because that's precisely what they DO have. A patent DOES grant you exclusivity for a limited time. You may choose to license the rights to other companies, but nobody can force you to do so if you don't wish to do so.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason they believe that is because that's precisely what they DO have. A patent DOES grant you exclusivity for a limited time. You may choose to license the rights to other companies, but nobody can force you to do so if you don't wish to do so.

Agreed, Harry. My point is that asking "what other company's products being blocked" isn't the whole story with patents-some companies try to block infringing products from the market, others are more intent on getting licensing fees. There is a lot of negotiating/haggling room with licensing fees; not so much with the other.

[stonetools]

Heh. In the midst of an interesting , link-filled article on software patents comes this quote attrributed to one William H. Gates:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. The solution … is patent as much as we can…. A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."

LINK

THe article goes on to argue against Professor Lawrence Lessig that the current system of software patents should continue.
Lessig has interesting opinions on copyright as well. He argues that the copyright term extensions are bad and should be overturned ( Applause from all corners of MR!)

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by covfam

the #1 and #2 door lock companies in the western world finished thier patent infringement dispute early in the year with Kwikset (black & decker) against Schlage and Kwikset won forcing Schlage to stop making and selling its its Secure key products.

Who's Schlage and what's Secure Key?? So major that it's instantly known without doing a Google search...

[covfam]

The secure key is a re-keyable lock that schlage made that was basicly a clone to Kwiksets smartkey (under the name Weiser Smartkey in canada) , kwikset sued them for patent infringment and they won, and court ordered that Schlage stopr sales and production of the Secure key (there is only support for the key left on company website)

You may not recognize the name because they dont get alot of television fluff or advertising like samsung or apple but there are 3 major lock manufacturers in the world and they sell in different regons under a different name. Kwikset, Masterlock and Schlage your front door lock ,electronic door lock, deadbolt lock, electronic auto door lock, car door lock, automobile ignition lock, even the biometrics locks at buisneses are manufacture by one of these 3 brands you will find schlage locks more often in door entry locks than portable locks like masterlock. you most likely use schlage locks every day without knowing it because locks arent in the public's eye

[kartu]

Originally Posted by covfam

the #1 and #2 door lock companies in the western world finished thier patent infringement dispute early in the year with Kwikset (black & decker) against Schlage and Kwikset won forcing Schlage to stop making and selling its its Secure key products.

Never heard of those companies. Nice. So Apple "innovated" applying it to the mobile market.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason they believe that is because that's precisely what they DO have. A patent DOES grant you exclusivity for a limited time. You may choose to license the rights to other companies, but nobody can force you to do so if you don't wish to do so.

It's not quite like that.
For instance Samsung or Motorola, or Nokia, who hold key hardware patents for number of core mobile technology, can not deny others access to the patents or ask for "too high price". (since the patents have become standard)

On the other hand Apple could ban Samsung from selling stuff in Germany, since it has patented "rectangular shape with rounded corners".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kartu

It's not quite like that.
For instance Samsung or Motorola, or Nokia, who hold key hardware patents for number of core mobile technology, can not deny others access to the patents or ask for "too high price". (since the patents have become standard)

If they hold the patents, what would prevent them from doing so? Obviously it wouldn't be in their commercial interests to do so (eg Apple are Samsung's biggest customer), but I don't believe there would anything to prevent them should they wish to do so, would there?

[kartu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If they hold the patents, what would prevent them from doing so?

FRAND

[johnnyb]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh.

.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Not to disrupt kartu and Harry's interesting conversation with more war cries from consumer factions -- which generally confuse vast domineering companies with personal individuality (as the Linux gent on p. 2 of this thread summed it nicely) -- but it seems to me that the various sides of the Apple/Google debate are actually complimentary.

No, Apple was not first or worst to sling patent infringement charges at the necks of competitors like Odd-Job's horse shoes. However, Steve Jobs's fuming about his sudden life's mission to destroy Android does make him sound like a flaming bicarbonate of ass.

So no, Apple isn't especially evil so much as it is adequately evil. It's the domination of corporations-as-people that achieves all this evil in general.

However, SJ's pox on Android and its family does seem breathtakingly petty. It also suggests his plans could be less firm in the rage-driven details than the right buttock of Proteus.